Building local NGO capacity, effectively and sustainably: Implications of selected USAIDsupported interventions in Namibia HIV Capacity Building Summit March 19, 2013 Johannesburg Background • Since 2006, Pact supported 22 NGOs in HIV service delivery funded by USAID. • Support: Mentoring, training, on-the-job assistance, peer exchange, facilitated services • In late 2010, donor changed focus, and only 6 NGOs had continued support with the goal of getting prepared for direct funding • Pact changed the approach to “OD Roadmap” to focus on graduation priorities OD Roadmap approach and tools Organizational Development (OD) Roadmaps objective and participatory measure of CSO partner organizational systems and structures • Basis for identifying organisational efficiency gaps and prioritizing interventions • Progression on a scale from 1 (nascent) to 5 (mature) • Covers 10 capacity building areas Comprehensive Institutional Strengthening Plans to identify, schedule and monitor all capacity-building activities Key areas of analysis 1. Assess the quality and usefulness of capacity development efforts since 2006 2. Examine the effectiveness of the “OD roadmap” capacity building approach 3. Review selected capacity building factors associated with sustainability (retention) of systems. 4. Assess perceived differences in importance of priority capacity building areas Relevant Data collection tools 1. 2. 3. 4. Partner survey (Quantitative and Qualitative) USAID tool (Qualitative) Pact tool (Qualitative) Historical OD Roadmap scores (Quantitative) Partner tool collected on 4 capacity building priority areas : • Strategic planning support • Financial Management support • Programmatic/Technical • Monitoring and Evaluation Support (M&E) Study limitations Sample size: • Limited data: Only 47 respondents from 17 organizations; • Organisations that we couldn’t reach are likely those whose programs had closed due to lack of funding (and thus may not have been sustainable). Objective data: • Except for those (6 orgs out of 17) who received “OD roadmap” support, we did not have reliable baseline data. Reponses: • Potential for recall bias (survey conducted 2012) Partner information (quantitative survey) OD Roadmap support, graduated to direct funding OD Roadmap support, not graduated No OD Roadmap support, graduated No OD Total Roadmap support, not graduated Number of orgs 3 (18%) 3 (18%) 2 (12%) 9 (53%) 17 Number of partner respondents 10 (21%) 12 (26%) 3 (6%) 22 (47%) 47 Findings Quality and Usefulness rated high Average Rating 5.00 Usefulness Quality 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 Strategic Support Financial Planning Program Thematic Mon & Eval No difference in usefulness between OD roadmap and pre-OD roadmap approach Usefulness rating 5 Pre-OD Roadmap OD Roadmap 4 3 2 1 Strategic Support Financial Planning Program Thematic Mon & Eval Changes in OD Roadmap Scores Baseline Score Score 5 Endline Score 4 3 2 1 0 PNP ORG NETW GOV FM HRM OPM GNC PROG M&E Systems retained and in use today from capacity building support Pre-OD Roadmap OD Roadmap M&E PT FP SP Non-Grads Grads 0 20 40 60 80 100 Retention by whether the support was the partner’s decision at first Retention 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Strategic Support Partner Financial Planning Program Thematic Other Mon & Eval Retention of capacity building support by level of usefulness % retention 100 80 60 40 20 0 Strategic Support Financial Planning Little or Somewhat Useful Program Thematic V/Critically Useful Mon & Eval Different stakeholders, different top-ranked capacity needs OD Roadmap partners USAID 1. Monitoring & evaluation 1. Resource mobilization 2. Technical support 2. Financial management 3. Financial management 3. Administration 4. Program development 4. Monitoring & evaluation Non-OD Roadmap partners Pact 1. Technical support 2. Financial management 2. Financial management 3. Institutional support 3. Advocacy 4. Technical support 4. Monitoring & evaluation 1. Resource mobilization Graduated partners & USAID: contrasting expectations Partners expect of USAID: USAID expects: 1. Same relationship/treatment 1. Strong organizational capacity with USAID as partners had with and governance systems, ability Pact to work independently and maintain capacity even after staff turnover 2. Continued technical assistance, but often lack 2. USAID support to partners, adequate budget but also partner ability to address own needs 3. Increased USAID capacitybuilding support after graduation 3. Performance like long-term international USAID partners, responsive and accountable Conclusions • OD roadmap support appears to be an effective approach for increasing organisational capacity. • CD organizations may need to consider impact of ownership of interventions for maximum impact in the area of system retention (although more research may need to be done to control for recall bias) • Increased communication on expectations will improve the transition to direct funding for both partners and USAID. Thank you!